I have a 92 Cherokee (that's a complete POS). I don't know that I would call it peppy, but the handling and brakes are scary. When I first got it, I immediately had the brakes checked out because it stopped so poorly (very significant pressure to stop quickly). The brakes were OK, I guess that's just how they stop. I have to pay attention to leave extra stopping distance whenever I drive the thing. They are also much too top heavy for my liking, it's amazing how many SUVs you see on their sides around here in the winter. Also, the mileage is fairly horrible (low gears and about as aerodynamic as a brick). Mine is just sitting around so I can use it in the snow, or when I need to carry stuff.

Get them a nice used Brink's truck. No air bags but they come out pretty good in crashes. You can turn it into a very safe camper when they are done with it.

__________________
You can get farther with a smile and a gun than you can with just a smile.

1984 300D
1985 300CD
1980 300SD
1993 SL500

I agree completely, a don't think I would consider an old 3-series a "nice car." Most of them seem to be pretty beat-up at this point. I was more interested in something reliable and safe. I mentioned the 3-series, Jetta, 190E/D and W124 because I believe them to be reasonably solid cars that can be found for a reasonable price, and I know a little about keeping them running. I'm sure there are some serviceable American/Japanese cars out there, but I just don't know anything about them.

As long as they pay for the fuel.

[QUOTE=Craig]My motorcycle is probably safer than your S-10.

until you hit a dead deer laying in the road at night at 55 mph.

or a pick up.

or as happened right outside my front door..........another motorcycle. really!! the helmeted guy lived.

__________________
currently
[1981 300 td tdidi 165500 dark brown/palamino-Brownie-mine-3k miles of ownership
1983 240d 162+++ Anthricite grey w/ henna red interior and hella lights-wifes car-Red

the above two cars are for sale
and can be seen on the cars for sale thread here. pix also available.


240d-144+ Manilla Yellow w/ palmino interior-greasecar kit-Blondie-the college kids car

23" gt 21 speed still on original tires-still got the nubs
21" khs tandem

Ouch, dear can even get you when they're dead. No problem, I always ride faster than 55.

I happen to drive past a company called failure analyses every couple of months they study all types of accidents, from plane wrecks to coffee makers that burst into flames. There parking lot is not full of new cars or SUV but there are a lot of very large sedans and station wagons.
I could see a higher injury rate in a w123 than a new Honda accord that are involved in accidents around 30 MPH but in high-speed accidents weight and momentum wins every time.
My son who was rear-ended in his 82 300d by a car going about 60MPH faster than he was suffered no injuries the car was still drivable the other driver will never be the same.
Now my son has a 1985 300D EURO hit from behind at 15 MPH bent, the frame the EURO feels cheap light and I just would not feel safe driving one verses the US market car.
My daughter was just involved in an accident she was the front seat passenger in a new GEO metro that hit a parked ford F350 at 25MPH the air bag saved her from serious injury for sure. However, there was a lot of damage to the occupant compartment at 45MPH I think it would have resulted in very serious injury or death. The new ford F350 they hit was totaled and suffered a shocking amount of damage.
I have been in accidents above 100MPH several times (legal racing) but always had plenty of space to scrub off speed the worst injury was I broke an arm one time and some concussions. I was in a car that rear-ended a gravel truck at 25MPH and I almost died. Wear your seat belt and drive the heaviest front engine car you can find and drive fast you may get a bad bo bo but you live. Air bags are great but not good enough when the engine block ends up in the back seat.
DHS

I just assumed the 123s were safer than the 190s. 190 2.5s here I come!
I guess it depends on type of collision...when a pickup hit my left front wheel from the side the 123 did a great job of keeping me and my family from feeling much impact...I think the weight of the car helped.

__________________
82 300D....went to MB heaven
90 350 SDL....excercising con rods

My current daily driver is an '85 300D. Previous daily driver was an '82 Audi 4000S diesel, total loss in a wreck in 10-2004. I got used to the 35-40 mpg of the Audi (VW 1.6 N/A 4 cyl), and really wanted the replacement to be a 30+ mpg car. After driving Honda Civics, Mazda Proteges, they all felt very small. So I started looking at 300D's. With any accident the first consideration is the laws of Physics F=MA (it's not just a good idea it's the law). Then the second consideration is vehicle design, for energy absorption in a crash. M-B was prolly before their time for when these vehicles were designed and built in this regard. With the abundance of SUV's and pick ups on the road I feel safer in the 300D than in a sigificantly smaller vehicle that gets 5-6 mpg better than the 300D.

__________________
85 300D, 96 F-250 CC PSD, Farmall 656 D and other assorted gas powered stuff

Just my humble opinion: the insurance is high because the cost of repair is so high on these cars. Bosy work is very pricey. They are very safe for a non airbag/abs car. Believe me, Mercedes has crash tested cars since the '59 W111 220Sb model, safety is/was a primary concern. My dad once got rear ended at over 40mph in his 1971 300SEL 3.5 and didn't get a scatch and the car got a slightly dented bumper. The other car was a total loss almost.

i think id feel safer in the mercedes 300D my last car a mitsu colt/mirage. was horrible i punched the door and it left a nice dent i couldnt pop out.. and i just punched it ( stupid dash wouldnt go back in after replaceing it)

Craig;
Mine was a 95 2 dr. New tires and if the street was damp, it would slide like it was on snow.....It was nice to be higher up , but a drag sliding into intersections....

__________________
'87 924S
'81 280SEL

Sold ->

81 300SD -
93 300E w/ 3.2
85 300D-
79 300SD
82 300CD
83 300CD - CA
87 190E 5 spd
87 Porsche 924S

"..I'll take a simple "C" to "G" and feel brand new about it..."

I ask this because I didn't do it at all on my 1st go round of running on veggie, and now I am just starting to run after hopefully doing it well enough.[/QUOTE]

Agreed...except if you have it in Part-Time 4X4. I've driven my 2000 Cherokee in 3-feet of snow (with cables) up Spruce Knob, and when it snows around here, I can drive up on to the snow banks plowed to the side and get a parking spot when there's none anywhere else.

Otherwise, 2X4 is so, so. As for the center of gravity, it's better than other SUVs, and I drive like it's an SUV instead of a sports car when going around corners. As for pep, plenty of it. It used to be the fastest SUV on the road (or close to it). Mine is fast, but the fuel economy.....that's why I now only use it for mud, snow, and icy roads. The MB is for regular driving for now on.

Pete.

__________________
Gallery

www.PeteChipmanPhoto.com

Remember these cars are expensive to fix so insurance costs will be higher. Both of my MB's cost more to insurane then my parants cars that are over 10 years newer.

My sisters friend has a little early 90's Mazda. What a tin can, if a 10 year old on a bike hit you, you would get hurt. Talk about a car that is a chore to drive.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Maybe the 2000s are better than the 92s, but my 92 is not great. In two wheel drive it's terrible, like an empty pick-up, in the snow. It will go anyplace in 4x4 with good tires. I just hate to drive the thing, so I only use it when I have too. Also, my 10-year old Jeep has about twice as many "minor" component failures as my 20-year old Benz. At the moment the ignition will not crank the starter, so I have to start it by jumping the starter solenoid. I should just get rid of the POS and buy a better 4x4 something to use in the snow.